The High Court dismissed the second appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant was absent at the hearing, and the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent had not been impleaded.
Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTIC E R. HEMALATHA
S.A.NO.368 OF 2007 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2007
Mary Philomina ...Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Irudayamary
2.Mahimaidoss
3.Thilagamani ...Respondents / Defendants
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 28.07.2005 in A.S. No.23 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, reversing the decree and judgment dated 29.11.2004, in O.S. No.1648 of 1995, on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
JUDGMENT
A perusal of the records shows that the firs t respondent died long back and till date no steps have been taken to implead the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent.
2.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the appellant.
3.In view of the above, the Second Appeal dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
mtl
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
S.A.No.368 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007
AK-II(CO) RVM(23/05/2022)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mary Philomina
1.Irudayamary
2.Mahimaidoss
3.Thilagamani
E R. HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
